The 70's sounds were more natural because of the lack of quantization. They didn't have it yet, so drummers practiced harder.. and in that practicing became better players, more creative and articulate.† They could punch tracks, but they still ultimately had to play it.† Not the case anymore.† If it sounds too perfect it simply is.. and this is stripping the life out of the music.† This is just a fact.. not subjective opinion... unless of course you like fake, cold sterile music void of human feel etc.

Even in the 70s, Steely Dan indulged in a lot of cut and paste.† A guitar solo recorded in the Royal Scam sessions eventually found its way in Third World Man!† To what extent does the fact that the part was ultimately played and not quantized matter if hundreds of takes are recorded to get the effect desired by the composer?† If you need so many retakes to record a track, it is no longer spontaneous or human.† By the end of the Wetton-era, Fripp was almost convinced that their studio albums would have to be carved out of live improvisations but very few of the big bands shared this philosophy.† Most of them were only too glad to get any advantage they could from the studio.† You sing odes to the virtues of Genesis but have you never noticed the unnatural delay with which Gabriel's voice is embellished?† What is so natural sounding about that?†It's the same as today.† Bands that want to sound human will avoid quantization of drum tracks and bands that don't care so much about won't. † But if all you care about is whether the drum tracks are quantized or not, just how open are you to good music anyway?† We have had this discussion before - and it seems it is practically the only thing you discuss - but rock has always been 'arranged', 'distorted' and 'presented'.† It is not true or human or organic, never has been.† Jazz is performance art.† It ceases to be jazz once the performance is over.† Rock was born in and made for the recorded music environment and has always had a conceptual aspect to it.† The concept, whether musical or lyrical, is more important than the performance or the manner thereof.†

Surrealist wrote:

The argument that prog must progress and keep morphing from one thing to another is a slippery slope.† I still here traditional jazz being played.† There is a structure to that.. a form, and certain instruments are expected and no one questions that.. they respect it.I don't see that Prog should be any different.†

First off, define prog.† Define prog structure and prog instrumentation.†† From inception, there has never been a fixed idea of what does constitute prog.† ELP tended towards classical adaptation.† KC were interested in experimentation and improvisation.† Yes combined pop and folk with instrumental virtuosity and extended sections.† Genesis were art/theatrical rock and got clubbed with prog more by accident.† Gentle Giant introduced the complexity, rather than the sprawl, of classical music in very short and compact compositions.† The only thing common about all of them is that they were all active in the 70s.† You have already said as much here:

Surrealist wrote:

Give any classic Prog band a rock drum kit, a Rickenbacker bass, an
electric and an acoustic guitar, a Hammond, a Moog, an Arp, a Melotron
and an acoustic piano and see what they can do with it.† Yes will sound
like Yes, Genesis like Genesis,† Tull like Tull, Floyd like Floyd,
Crimson like Crimson, Camel like Camel, ELP like ELP, Gentle Giant like
Gentle Giant and so on.† And they would all sound like Classic versions
of those bands just like a jazz combo will sound like traditiona jazz if
they use their instruments, jazz drum kit, upright bass, hollow body
guitar, piano, trumpet, sax etc.

Other than Canterbury, there wasn't even much mingling between the bands barring the odd Fripp or Wakeman contribution.†† They never saw themselves as prog and therefore didn't think of each other as representing the same kind of music.† Secondly, jazz is elite and jazz is heritage.† Prog is not.† It may be all the things in the world to progheads but the rest of the world doesn't care.† So it has to adapt and transform to gain new fans all the time.† People will pay good money to watch a first rate jazz musician play traditional jazz whereas...what happened to our beloved Nearfest?† Apocalypse?† Besides, as I already mentioned, jazz is performance art and prog is only partly so.† It is also concept, so the listeners demand a new experience from a new band.† In jazz, every gig is an experience by itself.

Surrealist wrote:

Now if you change all the instruments.. and their sounds... then you get something very different sounding... and no guarantee that it is going to sound good.

It may not sound good to you but it may sound bloody good to somebody else.† What's your problem with somebody else's choice?† I will take Kid A over Moonmadness 10 out of 10 times, thank you.† If some pseudo elitists don't think it is prog, or how should I put it, "not how prog ought to be", I really couldn't care less about it.† It, especially the track Everything in its right place, is more spine chilling than any music by Camel has ever been, probably any music that Camel is likely to make in the future as well.†† If the electronic elements discourage you from giving it a fair shot, it's your loss, not the loss of prog or music in general.††

Surrealist wrote:

Where Prog went wrong was trying to change all the great sounds rather than keep writing new and creative material and concentrate on the playing, performance and cohesive nature of the piece.† There were plenty enough great sounds available to them with that classic keyboard arsenal to make a variety of interesting music for another 200 years.†

When you write NEW and CREATIVE material, you would ultimately have to change some, if not all, of the great sounds, right?† A typical prog rock band has just vocals, guitar, keyboard, bass and drums.† How many combinations can you work out of such a set up without changing something about your sound?† Every musician in Gentle Giant was a multi instrumentalist and even they had to change.† Not just when they went pop but even during their more artistically productive years - they did change even from Three Friends through to Free Hand.† Familiarity breeds comfort and contempt and a band must change before, in the yearning for something fresh and new, the audience shifts allegiance to another band.† A band does not exist in a vacuum; it is heavily dependent on a sizable audience for sustenance.

ummm the fight or flight attitude that bands must deal with in order to adapt to the musical times. ROGER THAT, you again bring up some great points and pose a good argument with your clear definitions of what prog actually is. You also bring up the point that some pusedo elitist attitudes can cloud one's overall perception on what is really genuine in terms of recording music in the digital age. From listening to SURREALIST lately, I feel he is a man that sees very far and clear, but very narrowly. I feel that what he says about the recording process with music today like with quantisizing drum tracks etc, some of what he says is true. It can be an easier process with the recording process and can take away some of the natural sounds of the instrument itself. That is the basis of his argument. Now, where his scope of things has become narrow is that he feels that the rise of digital technology has caused bands to take a 'cop out' approach to music in general where a band of today can soley rely on digital technology to make the band sound better than they actually are. Because of this over manipulation, SURREALIST even feels that PROGRESSIVE METAL all together should be eliminated from the prog genre itself because too many prog bands do not sound natural or intimate enough because of the over use of digital recording tools.

All in all. You BOTH bring up terrific points and really I can see where one could really be torn to take a side. Personally, I feel that you, CATCHER 10 have a more broad scope of things and I can identify with what you are saying very clearly and I like how in the process of your explanations you do not take hold of an elitist attitude. That is where I feel, SURREALIST loses me on some points. In conclusion, thank you to the both you for bringing up some very interesting points. Happy listening to all, even if it is in analogue or digital!!!

Oh and one last thing. SURREALIST. Listen to IQ's DARK MATTER album. This is a great example where digital technology is Used, but not to the extent where it takes away from the natural intimate sound of the instruments used. Jon Jowitt's bass is sublime. Go for it. :)

Also. HOW THE HELL COULD YOUR WIFE FALL ASLEEP DURING A LIVE DREAM THEATER PERFORMANCE!! ???

†

My guitar teacher once fell asleep standing at a The Mars Volta show because they played for three hours at one dynamic level.†

rogerthat wrote:

Surrealist wrote:

The 70's sounds were more natural because of the lack of quantization. They didn't have it yet, so drummers practiced harder.. and in that practicing became better players, more creative and articulate.† They could punch tracks, but they still ultimately had to play it.† Not the case anymore.† If it sounds too perfect it simply is.. and this is stripping the life out of the music.† This is just a fact.. not subjective opinion... unless of course you like fake, cold sterile music void of human feel etc.

Even in the 70s, Steely Dan indulged in a lot of cut and paste.† A guitar solo recorded in the Royal Scam sessions eventually found its way in Third World Man!† To what extent does the fact that the part was ultimately played and not quantized matter if hundreds of takes are recorded to get the effect desired by the composer?† If you need so many retakes to record a track, it is no longer spontaneous or human.† By the end of the Wetton-era, Fripp was almost convinced that their studio albums would have to be carved out of live improvisations but very few of the big bands shared this philosophy.† Most of them were only too glad to get any advantage they could from the studio.† You sing odes to the virtues of Genesis but have you never noticed the unnatural delay with which Gabriel's voice is embellished?† What is so natural sounding about that?†It's the same as today.† Bands that want to sound human will avoid quantization of drum tracks and bands that don't care so much about won't. † But if all you care about is whether the drum tracks are quantized or not, just how open are you to good music anyway?† We have had this discussion before - and it seems it is practically the only thing you discuss - but rock has always been 'arranged', 'distorted' and 'presented'.† It is not true or human or organic, never has been.† Jazz is performance art.† It ceases to be jazz once the performance is over.† Rock was born in and made for the recorded music environment and has always had a conceptual aspect to it.† The concept, whether musical or lyrical, is more important than the performance or the manner thereof.†

Surrealist wrote:

The argument that prog must progress and keep morphing from one thing to another is a slippery slope.† I still here traditional jazz being played.† There is a structure to that.. a form, and certain instruments are expected and no one questions that.. they respect it.I don't see that Prog should be any different.†

First off, define prog.† Define prog structure and prog instrumentation.†† From inception, there has never been a fixed idea of what does constitute prog.† ELP tended towards classical adaptation.† KC were interested in experimentation and improvisation.† Yes combined pop and folk with instrumental virtuosity and extended sections.† Genesis were art/theatrical rock and got clubbed with prog more by accident.† Gentle Giant introduced the complexity, rather than the sprawl, of classical music in very short and compact compositions.† The only thing common about all of them is that they were all active in the 70s.† You have already said as much here:

Surrealist wrote:

Give any classic Prog band a rock drum kit, a Rickenbacker bass, an
electric and an acoustic guitar, a Hammond, a Moog, an Arp, a Melotron
and an acoustic piano and see what they can do with it.† Yes will sound
like Yes, Genesis like Genesis,† Tull like Tull, Floyd like Floyd,
Crimson like Crimson, Camel like Camel, ELP like ELP, Gentle Giant like
Gentle Giant and so on.† And they would all sound like Classic versions
of those bands just like a jazz combo will sound like traditiona jazz if
they use their instruments, jazz drum kit, upright bass, hollow body
guitar, piano, trumpet, sax etc.

Other than Canterbury, there wasn't even much mingling between the bands barring the odd Fripp or Wakeman contribution.†† They never saw themselves as prog and therefore didn't think of each other as representing the same kind of music.† Secondly, jazz is elite and jazz is heritage.† Prog is not.† It may be all the things in the world to progheads but the rest of the world doesn't care.† So it has to adapt and transform to gain new fans all the time.† People will pay good money to watch a first rate jazz musician play traditional jazz whereas...what happened to our beloved Nearfest?† Apocalypse?† Besides, as I already mentioned, jazz is performance art and prog is only partly so.† It is also concept, so the listeners demand a new experience from a new band.† In jazz, every gig is an experience by itself.

Surrealist wrote:

Now if you change all the instruments.. and their sounds... then you get something very different sounding... and no guarantee that it is going to sound good.

It may not sound good to you but it may sound bloody good to somebody else.† What's your problem with somebody else's choice?† I will take Kid A over Moonmadness 10 out of 10 times, thank you.† If some pseudo elitists don't think it is prog, or how should I put it, "not how prog ought to be", I really couldn't care less about it.† It, especially the track Everything in its right place, is more spine chilling than any music by Camel has ever been, probably any music that Camel is likely to make in the future as well.†† If the electronic elements discourage you from giving it a fair shot, it's your loss, not the loss of prog or music in general.††

Surrealist wrote:

Where Prog went wrong was trying to change all the great sounds rather than keep writing new and creative material and concentrate on the playing, performance and cohesive nature of the piece.† There were plenty enough great sounds available to them with that classic keyboard arsenal to make a variety of interesting music for another 200 years.†

When you write NEW and CREATIVE material, you would ultimately have to change some, if not all, of the great sounds, right?† A typical prog rock band has just vocals, guitar, keyboard, bass and drums.† How many combinations can you work out of such a set up without changing something about your sound?† Every musician in Gentle Giant was a multi instrumentalist and even they had to change.† Not just when they went pop but even during their more artistically productive years - they did change even from Three Friends through to Free Hand.† Familiarity breeds comfort and contempt and a band must change before, in the yearning for something fresh and new, the audience shifts allegiance to another band.† A band does not exist in a vacuum; it is heavily dependent on a sizable audience for sustenance.

ummm the fight or flight attitude that bands must deal with in order to adapt to the musical times. ROGER THAT, you again bring up some great points and pose a good argument with your clear definitions of what prog actually is. You also bring up the point that some pusedo elitist attitudes can cloud one's overall perception on what is really genuine in terms of recording music in the digital age. From listening to SURREALIST lately, I feel he is a man that sees very far and clear, but very narrowly. I feel that what he says about the recording process with music today like with quantisizing drum tracks etc, some of what he says is true. It can be an easier process with the recording process and can take away some of the natural sounds of the instrument itself. That is the basis of his argument. Now, where his scope of things has become narrow is that he feels that the rise of digital technology has caused bands to take a 'cop out' approach to music in general where a band of today can soley rely on digital technology to make the band sound better than they actually are. Because of this over manipulation, SURREALIST even feels that PROGRESSIVE METAL all together should be eliminated from the prog genre itself because too many prog bands do not sound natural or intimate enough because of the over use of digital recording tools.

All in all. You BOTH bring up terrific points and really I can see where one could really be torn to take a side. Personally, I feel that you, CATCHER 10 have a more broad scope of things and I can identify with what you are saying very clearly and I like how in the process of your explanations you do not take hold of an elitist attitude. That is where I feel, SURREALIST loses me on some points. In conclusion, thank you to the both you for bringing up some very interesting points. Happy listening to all, even if it is in analogue or digital!!!

Oh and one last thing. SURREALIST. Listen to IQ's DARK MATTER album. This is a great example where digital technology is Used, but not to the extent where it takes away from the natural intimate sound of the instruments used. Jon Jowitt's bass is sublime. Go for it. :)

There are just as many composers that create things with intent in mind. Wether you or I see that intent is another story ... because you can't predict an audience and what they will perceive!

That's what I said. You shouldn't judge a piece by what you think is the intent behind it - because you might be wrong. If the artist has stated his intent, you can judge him by that. If not, judge him by what you're hearing and nothing else.

moshkito wrote:

Making assumptions about the public is not going to get you going very far.

I never said artist should make assumptions about their audience. I said the audience shouldn't make assumptions about the artist.

moshkito wrote:

and your assumption is that everyone is blind to the psychic world out there ... and its colors and vibrations that emanate.

I haven't even talked about that.

moshkito wrote:

which has become an idea from the public, by the public that some people think you must adhere to! That is presumptuous. Not what I said!

Say what?

moshkito wrote:

My thoughts are that you are confusing popular music ... with anything else ... and as such you are not giving the credit or the right for anything else to be done ... that you can not comprehend.

Where are you getting that from? I said exactly the opposite: Everybody has a right to make any music he wants to. Whereas you said people who you perceive as commercial and insincere don't have a right to make music.

The argument that for a band to survive they must keep radically changing their sound to survive is questionable.

Look at AC DC. They have not changed their sound at all. They still fill arenas. Jazz bands are still playing with the same instruments for decades.

What did the 80's bring that was not around before?Drum machinesQuantizationMidiSamplingDigital recording

And oddly enough the most creative and openly expressive form of rock music, Prog, basically dies.

Any coincidence? I think not.

Genesis was over when Hackett left.. just as Deep Purple was over when Blackmore left.Sabbath when Ozzy left.I use those later examples because new things were born... OZZY, the DIO version of Sabbath that should have been called another name.. and Rainbow with Dio was a fantastic band beyond Deep Purple. Genesis should have renamed after Gabriel left, then again renamed after Hackett left.

There was an album set to be released called "And then there was Nothing"

One more thought mentioning Collins going to electronic drums...Well compare that to what Bruford did with them on the three 80's Crimson albums. The spirit of Prog was still there with Fripp at the helm.... while with Genesis... it was just nonsense in the 80's. I don't care about how many records they sold.. is anyone here going to argue that the best work of Genesis from an artistic or musical standpoint was during the 80's?

What did the 80's bring that was not around before?Drum machinesQuantizationMidiSamplingDigital recording

And oddly enough the most creative and openly expressive form of rock music, Prog, basically dies.

So if 80s hadn't brought any of that, prog would survive for another decade? I don't think so.. You can't just imagine people could listen to the same genre for so many years. If you are a fan you can listen to it for your entire life, as we do, but other people will get tired. context changes, and so does the music, and this happened with metal, punk, grunge, gangsta rap or whatever you want..

The argument that for a band to survive they must keep radically changing their sound to survive is questionable.

Radically is a word you have inferred of your own. I don't think it has been suggested in any of the arguments. Change is desirable, the degree of change is very relative.

Surrealist wrote:

Look at AC DC. They have not changed their sound at all. They still fill arenas.

And so would Genesis even if they only played their pop songs for the entire set. You can't use commercial success in favour of one of your arguments and pooh-pooh it with regard to somebody else's argument. Please attempt to be consistent in your stance.

Surrealist wrote:

What did the 80's bring that was not around before?Drum machinesQuantizationMidiSamplingDigital recording

They also brought a whole new level of metal crunch and very interesting rhythmic possibilities via the African influences favoured in that decade.

^^ Overall of I had to choose I'd go with the 80's digital recording techniques. Colour me in digital cause for me it's the best and its an era im most attached to sound wise. very innovative, although I'd never choose ABACAB over FOXTROT. To even compare those two albums is a bit extreme.

Also. I'm very surprised that no one has mentioned RUSH in all of this. Rush is a band that definitely adapted with the times. It was a fight or flight attitude. Rush simply were exhausted from creating monster albums like HEMISPHERES and new they would have to change their sound in order to survive and adapt. Then, in 1981 came one of the greatest progressive rock albums in MOVING PICTURES. RUSH strongly adopted the age of electric that the 80's were carrying very strongly. Geddy strongly stressed the use of synth in his overall sound and that movement gave birth to more gems like SIGNALS, GRACE UNDER PRESSURE and the classic POWER WINDOWS. These albums were less COMPLEX then their previous efforts, but far more enjoyable in my opinion. RUSH achieved their best successes as a band in the 80's and still kept adapting going forward into the 90's. RUSH is one of those bands that have been able to really please their fans because of the diversity and growth of sound they have wielded over 4 decades of music.

...The jazz in Floyd was alive and well in the fingertips of Rick Wright.

You ought to take a DAW and separate most of Richard Wright, all the way to Wish You Were Here, from the rest of the band.

I'm not sure that "jazz" would be a good term for it ... "alien", "weird", "far out", "strange", "experimental", "off the wall" ... would be much more in line with his doings thatn otherwise. The only other person doing this today, btw, is Richard Barbieri of Porcupine Tree, but I'm not sure that the band itself can get a wee bit more away from Steven Wilson ... who is thinking he is God right about now, and the only Progressive master out there!

So if 80s hadn't brought any of that, prog would survive for another
decade? I don't think so.. You can't just imagine people could listen
to the same genre for so many years. If you are a fan you can listen to
it for your entire life, as we do, but other people will get tired.
context changes, and so does the music, and this happened with metal,
punk, grunge, gangsta rap or whatever you want..

I think it
would have.. because the Prog artists would have still had the upper
hand sonically with top shelf playing and great drumming that would
have left other bands in the dust. But of course, they would have had
to continue making great albums. If they didn't, then that would leave
a void for new bands to come in and make great Prog albums.

They
also brought a whole new level of metal crunch and very interesting
rhythmic possibilities via the African influences favoured in that
decade.

Nothing was heavier or crunchy that Black Sabbath's
first album, even to this day. It's the rawness of those opening power
cords that still send a chill up my spine, more than Slayer or any of
newer metal bands. Iommi's Gibson through a Marshall, right onto
tape. No fiddling around. That's the right way to do it. Still is.I'd never choose ABACAB over FOXTROT. To even compare those two albums is a bit extreme.

Well,
I don't think Foxtrot gets made in the digital age. It's the need for
them to have been more internally resourceful that gave birth to that
amazing recording. It would have been way too distracting for them to
have been pondering which "plugin" to use on the first bridge during
"Get em out by Friday". It's the mindset of experimentation within the
confines of analog tape multitracking that pushed these bands in the
right direction. While there was cutting and splicing.. yes agreed,
they STILL HAD TO PLAY IT!!!! at some point. It's not just practicing
the chops.. it's practicing the track inside the other music
directly... not just copy and pasting sound files here and there. The
intentions were much more intimate with the music.

Also. I'm
very surprised that no one has mentioned RUSH in all of this. Rush is a
band that definitely adapted with the times. It was a fight or flight
attitude. Rush simply were exhausted from creating monster albums like
HEMISPHERES

Are talking about Rush as a Prog band? The great
works were 2112, Farewell to Kings, Hemispheres, Permanent Waves and
Moving Pictures. That's it. Done.

Signals signaled the end of
Rush as a true Prog band. I think they could have done something much
more interesting with Grace Under Pressure using those sounds rather
than what they did. Crimson did it in the 80's and kept things very
rooted in classic Prog.

Rush made a lot of music with those
great 5 albums in a very short period of time. Not sure any other Prog
band was ever that productive in such a tight timespan. I would rather
they take some time off and recharge rather than release Signals was
obviously a major disappointment coming off Moving Pictures. I
understand they might have been tired of 20 minute opuses... but they
didn't do that on Moving Pictures. I think there was another great
album there if they would have paced themselves a bit better. Signals
sounds rushed and out of place in the flow of their work. I would
much rather hear Geddy play bass than keys. I would much rather have
seen him get even better at playing and singing and playing bass
pedals.

When I get in the mood to put on Rush, I don't reach for Power Windows .... maybe you do though..

They
also brought a whole new level of metal crunch and very interesting
rhythmic possibilities via the African influences favoured in that
decade.

Nothing was heavier or crunchy that Black Sabbath's
first album, even to this day. It's the rawness of those opening power
cords that still send a chill up my spine, more than Slayer or any of
newer metal bands. Iommi's Gibson through a Marshall, right onto
tape. No fiddling around. That's the right way to do it. Still is.

Come on, Black Sabbath is my favourite metal band but nothing in the 70s was as crunchy as say the Master of Puppets riff. Black Sabbath didn't have two guitarists for one thing. Sabbath riffs are creepy but I am talking about sheer, crushing power. The best 80s metal riffs can simply fling you of the window for their sheer force.

More credit to Iommi to get that sound with one guitar. I like Judas Priest, but they had to use two guitars to get that sound. Same thing with drummers.. Bonham could do more with one kick drum than a lot of the metal guys can with two.

More interesting to have a foot on the kick and high hat. More textures.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum